Canon 100-400mm

Russ77

Russ77

Suspended / Banned
Messages
3,093
Name
Russ
Edit My Images
Yes
I currently have a Sigma 170-500mm which I use pretty much exclusively for shooting Rugby and cricket.

Since upgrading from a Canon 400D to 7D I've noticed how poor the IQ is when you get beyond 400mm, I'm not just talking about pixel peeping, the focus isn't sharp and the colours just look washed out.

I know the 70-200 is about the sharpest there is around but to get anywhere near as close as I can currently get I'd need to resort to extenders.

I've been eyeing up the 100-400mm as a replacement to the Sigma, from what I can tell it seems to be a sharp(ish) lens would still give me near enough the range I need.

The 100mm that I'd be losing could potentially be clawed back by the better IQ which would increase the potential to be able to crop if needs be.

Does my logic make sense?

I've seen a few of these pop up on our sponsor's website and they've offered just under £300 for my Sigma, am I likely to get any more selling it privately?
 
I can't recommend the 100-400 enough if you get a good copy. I reluctantly sold mine last week, due to switching my gear up completely for a fresh start, and it was a truly brilliant lens. Sharp all the way through, very sturdy, watch out for it sucking in dust on older models, if your buying second hand make sure you get a clean copy. I never had issues with dust sucking, but I treat all my gear very well and carefully.

As for your Sigma, They go for just under 400 new I think? Cant remember off the top of my head, so around 280-300 sounds about right for a good second hand copy.
 
Ive the 300 prime 2.8 non IS ,Its a cracking lens if you can afford it and if you need extra attach a convertor and your sorted
 
hoganpoly said:
Ive the 300 prime 2.8 non IS ,Its a cracking lens if you can afford it and if you need extra attach a convertor and your sorted
Click to expand...

I did consider primes but they're not going to give me enough versitilty for Rugby, cricket I might just get away with a prime and converter.

Paron the pun but a prime example was on Saturday when the ball was picked up on the defending side's 22 yard line and they ran in a try at the opposite side of the field. I managed to pretty much keep up with the action thanks to the zoom but I wouldn't have been able to take the extender out then get it back in again (I was standing on the halfway line :lol: )
 
170-500mm these number look impressive on the packaging, and people are easily swayed by impressive looking numbers when they're buying toys.

If it were possible to deliver top notch IQ, with those focal lengths, Canon would be doing it, and they're not.

You won't miss much with the 100-400mm on the rugby pitch. Perfect lens for that, if you're working with 1 camera only.
 
dan-marsh said:
170-500mm these number look impressive on the packaging, and people are easily swayed by impressive looking numbers when they're buying toys.

If it were possible to deliver top notch IQ, with those focal lengths, Canon would be doing it, and they're not.

You won't miss much with the 100-400mm on the rugby pitch. Perfect lens for that, if you're working with 1 camera only.
Click to expand...

Quite agree with you Dan!

I bought this lens not long into my DSLR career, didn't have much of a budget and this was the best mm for £ I could find but now recognise the comprimise is in the IQ :rules:

I couldn't justify using 2 cameras....... although I do still have my 400D ;) :lol:
 
I have the Canon 100-400, great lens, got some great aviation shots with it. Also like the push pull zoom too, not sure why, just feels right.
 
ShrubMonkey said:
I have the Canon 100-400, great lens, got some great aviation shots with it. Also like the push pull zoom too, not sure why, just feels right.
Click to expand...

Agreed, I think it's a love hate thing. Most people who I've spoken too dislike it, but after getting used to it, I love the feel of push pull, unfortunately it invites dust in with it, that's my only negative.
 
It's my walk-about wildlife lens. One great advantage of the zoom is that finding a smallish subject when using a prime telephoto lens can be tricky due to the FOV.
With the 100-400 you can spot the object at 100 easily enough and then zoom in for the shot.
 
dan-marsh said:
170-500mm these number look impressive on the packaging, and people are easily swayed by impressive looking numbers when they're buying toys.

If it were possible to deliver top notch IQ, with those focal lengths, Canon would be doing it, and they're not.

You won't miss much with the 100-400mm on the rugby pitch. Perfect lens for that, if you're working with 1 camera only.
Click to expand...

The sigma 50-500 comes surprisingly close to the 100-400 for IQ though. Admittedly the OS version is actually more expensive than the 100-400 from a lot of places, but still, sigma do do well at making absurd lenses :D
 
Cheers for all the input :)

Last night an order was placed with MPB :D

Can't wait to take delivery and have a play with it :lol:
 
Incidentally...... I got outside to get some moon shots last night.

Here's one from the Sigma @ 500mm

IMG_1612-1.jpg


Here's one I took a month or so ago at 85mm with my Canon 15-85mm

_MG_0526Edit.jpg


The image size isn't great but I think there's a hell of a lot more detail from the Canon, proving size isn't everything :lol:
 
This was my effort last night with stacked TC's on the 150-500, not very good I might have another go tonight if it's clear.

http://SPAM/c3whur/mar/IMG_4429.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top